Horn v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case. The declaration alleged that on the 1st of April, 1854, at, &c., the plaintiff was possessed of a close in Milan, and the defendants were in possession of a railroad, passing over and across said close, and the corporation, by reason of said crossing, ought to have erected and maintained a sufficient and lawful fence on each side of their railroad against the plaintiff’s said close, to prevent cattle lawfully feeding or depasturing, or being in said close, from…
Read the full summary
Case. The declaration alleged that on the 1st of April, 1854, at, &c., the plaintiff was possessed of a close in Milan, and the defendants were in possession of a railroad, passing over and across said close, and the corporation, by reason of said crossing, ought to have erected and maintained a sufficient and lawful fence on each side of their railroad against the plaintiff’s said close, to prevent cattle lawfully feeding or depasturing, or being in said close, from escaping out of said close into and upon said railroad, and upon other lands of the plaintiff and upon adjoining closes of…
1Opinion of the CourtEastmae, J.
We regard it as settled in this State that railroad corporations are obliged to maintain fences on the sides of their roads, for the protection of all whose lands adjoin the railways, and all who are rightfully upon the lands, except where the corporations have settled with and paid the owners of the *172adjoining lands for building and maintaining the fences. Cornwall v. The Sullivan Railroad, 8 Foster 161; Dean v. The Sullivan Railroad, 2 Foster 316 ; Towns v. The Cheshire Railroad, 1 Foster 363; Rev. Stat., chap. 142, secs. 6, 7.
We also regard it as settled that where a railroad divides the…